Just like Chris Angelis commented in the last entry of this series, here we are trying to find a solution that is neither Hegelian nor Deleuzian, but one of the best of both. Deleuze, most probably influenced by Pierre Macherey's book Hegel or Spinoza, preferred the second to the first, thus losing great developments in his theory.
The central idea is that there is a passage from pure differentiation to de-differentiation, thus generating what we usually understand by identity. But it is important to note the nuanced change: identity no longer means strict and unchangeable equality, but a threshold of indifference.
As indifference simply means differentiation of so little intensity that it does not cross any threshold of differentiation, it is nothing more than a pronounced de-differentiation, that is, a lessening of differentiation intensity.
But, as can be seen, lesser intensity differentiation means less(er) difference(s).
Thus, identity stability generated by the increase in de-differentiation from differentiation leads to an accumulation of indifference.
Hence, as we said a few entries back, it is a function of consideration.
This means: there is a threshold that must be crossed if it is to be taken into consideration as differentiated.
Thus, as Chris Angelis questioned: what is the difference – within, inherent – between two atoms of hydrogen? We can answer with a resounding: none. Not because, in fact, there is no difference, but because more differentiation, that is, differentiation of greater intensity, would be necessary for them to be considered as effectively different from each other.
The concept of "threshold of indifference" very intriguing – for reasons I can't even consciously explain. Perchance there is something nihilistic in its core.
ResponderExcluirHere's another idea/food for thought: If A is just within the threshold compared to B (and hence they can be considered identical), and similarly B is just within the threshold compared to C, yet A is not within the threshold compared to C, can we reach a certain paradox where A = B = C, yet A != C ?
Let's assume we have a device that can differentiate objects that have a size difference of 1mm or larger. If A = 0.91mm in diameter, B = 1mm, and C = 1.9mm, the device would report (i.e. in this metaphor of threshold of indifference) that A = B, and that B = C. Yet, clearly, it would say A != C.
I find this (undoubtedly intriguing and on-to-something) approach both problematic and eye-opening, if that makes any sense!
I think you are on to something, indeed.
ExcluirI don't think that A = B = C, A != C is a paradox, we are just not accepting transitivity, which is usually an axiom or a rule in mathematical systems, but it need not be one. Think of family and social relations, like marriage. Many people are married, they're all different to each other. But for a sociological research, say some government statistics, that's indifferent. That's why the very object is determined by the act of taking it into consideration. The gaze shapes the object it sees just as much as the object allows itself be seen. Do you fathom?
Ah, yes; I do see your point there. At least the family/social relations example is an apt one.
Excluir